The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It seems the proteas would score well above 500 had it been a 50 over's game ... bad luck to the history of one day cricket

Cricinfo writes - Never before have so many SIXES been smashed in a one-dayer, never before has anyone clattered 36 in a one-day over, never before has a World Cup fifty come faster, never before have so many batsmen devoured so many bowlers with so little effort. South Africa have created one royal mess here at Warner Park ...

I mean, they can play, but why in the world cup? These teams never play cricket with the big guns and only time they face each other is the world cup. Why don't they first learn how to play by playing smaller tournaments first !!! Ridiculous. Most of these team play only one world cup, and then get vanished. This is harming the cricket in general I will tell. Anyone speaks about teams like Namibia and East Africa now a day? Yes, they also played in the world cup.

I think it is great for the future of cricket, introducing a few teams on the world stage... great for experience and development of cricket in that country.

Even big teams have lost.. West Indies, Pakistan and India have all been bowled out for below 100!

Well, if you are speaking about the lowest scores and getting out below 100, why you are seeing only WI, Pak and Ind? Every cricket playing nation was bowled out by someone before scoring 100 on several occasions. Even Australians have been bowled out 4 times before scoring 100 (70,70,91,93). But these are a few bad days, not a norm for big teams.

I think problem with small teams coming in the world cup all of a sudden and then get the thrashing, that may break their self confidence and they may never come back to play cricket again. Because the thrashing is simply too harsh in that stage.

If its for the game, it's their state authority that should be more proactive to popularise the same in their country. Imagine, such a big event going on and here in no France no channel broadcasting (or even highlights) the event (out of 60 that I get). Even never I have heard in their national news a single line about the event. As if that doesn't even exist. And I am not sure apart from the regular cricket playing nations, how many others take the pain to broadcast the game live in their country.

The game needs to be on the TV, and then they should play smaller tournaments, or tour other countries where they can meet bigger teams.

Well, if you are speaking about the lowest scores and getting out below 100, why you are seeing only WI, Pak and Ind? Every cricket playing nation was bowled out by someone before scoring 100 on several occasions. Even Australians have been bowled out 4 times before scoring 100 (70,70,91,93). But these are a few bad days, not a norm for big teams.

I think problem with small teams coming in the world cup all of a sudden and then get the thrashing, that may break their self confidence and they may never come back to play cricket again. Because the thrashing is simply too harsh in that stage.

If its for the game, it's their state authority that should be more proactive to popularise the same in their country. Imagine, such a big event going on and here in no France no channel broadcasting (or even highlights) the event (out of 60 that I get). Even never I have heard in their national news a single line about the event. As if that doesn't even exist. And I am not sure apart from the regular cricket playing nations, how many others take the pain to broadcast the game live in their country.

The game needs to be on the TV, and then they should play smaller tournaments, or tour other countries where they can meet bigger teams.

Thats not true. Yes you have to play at a local level, and there are criteria that has to be fulfilled.. after that you are given the chance to play on the world stage.. saving the world cup only for the big boys is not only a narrow view but stifling growth.

Thats not true. Yes you have to play at a local level, and there are criteria that has to be fulfilled.. after that you are given the chance to play on the world stage.. saving the world cup only for the big boys is not only a narrow view but stifling growth.

Well said. I love watching these David and Goliath matches, there is something brilliant about passion overcoming professionalism. That match between Ireland and Pakistan, "boy oh boy" they don't come much more riveting than that.

BTW. I am amazed that somebody from America should be interested in Cricket. Are you originally from another part of the world where Cricket is played

There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of us have to pee on the electric fence.

I think problem with small teams coming in the world cup all of a sudden and then get the thrashing, that may break their self confidence and they may never come back to play cricket again. Because the thrashing is simply too harsh in that stage.

If its for the game, it's their state authority that should be more proactive to popularise the same in their country. Imagine, such a big event going on and here in no France no channel broadcasting (or even highlights) the event (out of 60 that I get). Even never I have heard in their national news a single line about the event. As if that doesn't even exist. And I am not sure apart from the regular cricket playing nations, how many others take the pain to broadcast the game live in their country.

The game needs to be on the TV, and then they should play smaller tournaments, or tour other countries where they can meet bigger teams.

Originally Posted by conradical

Thats not true. Yes you have to play at a local level, and there are criteria that has to be fulfilled.. after that you are given the chance to play on the world stage..

Are you sure what I am telling is not true, and what you are telling is that different from what I told, apart from the fact that I did a deeper analysis?

I think I would still repeat what I told before. You need to be prepared for the game. The game must be in the TV, it should be make popular in the countries, state should take more pro active approaches, like in Bangladesh, teams should be given the chance to play in events where they can meet bigger teams to prepare themselves, and not teams like Barmuda, where the coach tells "If we can bat out 50 overs against these teams, then that's a plus for us", we need atleast teams that comes with the mindset to win a few games, against biggies, and just not to feel good if they can last for the full overs, and again for which it is important to play against big guns before joining the WC.

I thought I would be harsher, when I saw you are accusing me of having a narrow view, but then thought if all of us start accusing each other personally over an issue like this, SP will become a worser place to live, and then, I think my views are not as narrow as you have mentioned.

... sorry, you must be misunderstanding.. i am not arguing, nor am I insulting, neither am I addressing your view directly. It really is not your view on the smaller nations not playing in the WC, it is a view that most people have and I was referring to that general view rather than saying "You have a narrow view"

Nothing personal and whats the point? If you and I were on the ICC board then I would have argued to death with you.

Bottom line, you believe that, I don't... lets talk who will win now.. shall we? I really hate forum threads that go on an on about something.. let's move on.

Neither do I. If we followed that line of thinking then two thirds of the nations wouldn't bother turning up to the Olympics or different world championships for a lot of sports. It's not necessarily about the winning, it's the participating and the spreading of the ideals of sport.

My first point was it's important that the game become popular in other countries (apart from the top 8/10 nations) and for that it's important for the media, and local state govt. to support the game more pro-actively. I think that it doesn't help when such an important event doesn't get even the minimum media coverage in most of the countries. Some are opposing this and do NOT agree with me.

My second point was that smaller nations be allowed to take part in other smaller competitions and they should be allowed more to be on tour to bigger cricket playing countries (what is now limited among big guys mainly) as I think that would help smaller nations to develop their cricket and be prepared for the big event. Again some guys do NOT agree with me while I think this is important.

And my last point was that teams should be allowed to come to the world cup once they are prepared (say, by following the above two steps) for the game, means when they will be atleast psychologically ready to win a few games, as sudden exposure to big guys without preperation can result to big thrashing, and this can inturn damage their self confidence and retard their growth (as we see in the case of many nations that took part in previous WCs but now nowhere in the scene, and the biggest thrashings of the history of ODIs are always happening in the WCs).

Among other negative sides, cricket life of guys who perform poorer can come to an end due to frustration, pressure and criticism and we are seeing that Van Bunge, guy who got 6 sixes against SA is facing unemployment due to this. Again some guys do NOT agree here or think this is not true.

Now since we have three guys against one, probably, you guys are right and I am wrong, or probably, you criticized too fast before reading what I wrote, or may be we have very different understanding of this game. So I am giving up. Let's smile and finish off the debate nicely.

Conradical, yeah I took it personally as you were speaking to me, sorry for the misunderstanding, of course we should speak about nicer things. I totally agree with you

My vote will always be for Australia and South Africa, but after yesterdays game against Bermuda, I think India can well be one of the top three nations to be able to win the cup.

That's okay... Ireland's next match is against us... I'll make sure we put them back in their place.

Goddamn Irish people... *steups*

Yeah, WI surely will win the game. Apart from that, I feel a bit sorry about the WI team, as apart from England, all other teams have developed their game with time, if we compare the game of today with that of 20 /30 years back. Like, before a score of 200+ was considered a good score while today people are scoring 400+ runs. Pitches have changed, I agree, but I was speaking about WI, not when you won two WCs in a row, but even during the days of Gordon Greeneez, Desmind Hayens, Viv Richards, Jeff Dujon, Counrtney Walsh, etc. you were a formidable team. Today, the standard of the team is not exactly as it was before. I heard that because the WI guys are now taking up soccer more and more, probably that's the reason. I would love to see the same fearless WI as before though .

I think India has the potential to get the WC but their team is like a house of cards; as it’s seen if one player fails at the top order the remaining line up just crumbles under pressure. I highly think that South Africa or New Zealand can get this one but definitely not Australia.